Three-Radius Model — 认知/能力/行动三半径

Activate when: user says 'I know what to do but I'm not doing it', 'we understand the problem but can't fix it', 'effort isn't translating to results', 'why isn't our team executing?', or 'I feel stuck despite being competent'. Also activate for pre-planning skill development or post-mortem gap analysis. Do NOT activate when: the gap is already identified and the solution is purely tactical (just execute); or when organizational constraints (not individual gaps) are clearly the sole cause.

Overview

Three distinct circles govern performance: what you understand (cognition radius), what you can do (capability radius), and what you actually do (action radius). These are almost never the same size — the gaps between them are where most performance is lost.

The Cognition-Capability gap is a learning and resource problem. The Capability-Action gap is an execution problem driven by fear, inertia, or misaligned incentives. Treating them as the same problem is the default failure mode.

Skill composition: Use AFTER [metacognition] to accurately place each circle. Use BEFORE [okr-goal-setting]. Complements [circle-of-competence]: circle-of-competence sets DOMAIN boundary; three-radius-model maps DEPTH layers within that domain.

When to Use

• Someone says "we know what to do but aren't doing it" — Capability-Action gap
• Someone says "we know the problem but don't know how to fix it" — Cognition-Capability gap
• Effort is not translating to results despite apparent competence
• Pre-planning skill or team development goals; post-mortem gap analysis

When NOT to use: gap is already identified and solution is purely tactical; organizational constraints (not individual gaps) are clearly the sole cause; domain too new for a cognition radius to be established.

Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)

• Engine mode: user has a concrete case → run The Process directly.
• Coach mode: user is unfamiliar or describes being "stuck" without knowing why → guide step by step.

In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.

1. One-line what-it-is: "What you understand, what you can do, and what you actually do are three different circles — and the gaps between them are where most performance is lost."
2. Check fit: "Are you making less progress than you expect, and unsure exactly where the bottleneck is?"
3. Elicit their real case: "Tell me about a specific domain where progress feels slower than it should. What do you understand? What can you do? What are you actually doing?"

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

4. Run The Process one step at a time. Start with cognition only. Do not move to capability or action until cognition is mapped.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

5. Close by naming the insight uncovered. Is the bottleneck learning, skill-building, or just starting? Name it explicitly.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

The Process

Output artifact: Three-Radius Diagnostic. Gate rule: Each circle requires specific, observable evidence — not self-report.

Step 1 — Map cognition radius. List 3-5 things you understand well enough to evaluate others' work, explain mechanisms, predict outputs, and name your understanding boundary. Validation test: could you teach each item to a peer and receive useful critique? If not, it is in your awareness radius, not cognition radius. Gate 1: 3-5 items passing the validation test.

Step 2 — Map capability radius. List 3-5 things you can DO with demonstrated, externally evaluated performance. Understanding how something is done ≠ being able to do it. Gate 2: 3-5 items, each with a demonstrated output and external evaluator.

Step 3 — Map action radius. List only what you specifically did in the last 30 days — behaviors, frequency, outputs, decisions. No intentions or "typical" behavior. Gate 3: Specific, dated behaviors only.

Step 4 — Identify gaps. Cognition-Capability gap: understand but can't execute — intervention: deliberate practice, resource acquisition. Capability-Action gap: can do but not doing — intervention: commitment devices, environmental design, incentive restructuring. Adding cognition to a Capability-Action problem is the most common misdiagnosis. Gate 4: Both gaps with ≥2 items each, root causes named.

Step 5 — Design 30-day closure. For each gap, name the ONE highest-impact item, the specific intervention, the minimum viable demonstration within 30 days, and the named validation mechanism. Gate 5: One 30-day action per priority gap with named validation.

Stop-rule: If all three circles appear identical, you have mapped aspiration. Return to Step 3; list only behaviors from the last 30 days.

text

Three-Radius Diagnostic — [Domain] — [Date]
Cognition Radius: 1.[Item — validated by: X]
Capability Radius: 1.[Item — demonstrated by: output — evaluated by: who]
Action Radius (last 30 days): 1.[Behavior — frequency: X/week]
Cognition-Capability Gaps: Item | Root Cause | 30-Day Action | Validation
Capability-Action Gaps:    Item | Root Cause | 30-Day Action | Observable Signal
Priority: Cognition-Capability → [item + action] | Capability-Action → [item + action]

→ Method in Action: Nikola Tesla's Three-Radius Divergence, 1880–1943

Three-Radius Packs

Pack 1 — Founders/Operators: Cognition = validated by 50+ customer conversations. Capability = teachable and replicable. Action = what specifically happened in the last 30 days to expand market position.

Pack 2 — Knowledge Workers: Cognition radius often large but boundary unvalidated. Capability rarely externally evaluated. Action is the bottleneck — classic Capability-Action gap: commitment device + accountability partner.

Pack 3 — Organizations: Strategic intelligence ≠ capability. Documented processes ≠ demonstrated capability. Measure actual decisions made, not activity (meetings, reports).

Applying It Well

1. 30-day rule: "What did I do in October?" shrinks the action radius to reality; "what do I usually do?" inflates it.
2. External evaluator rule: self-assessed capability is biased; without external evaluation, the item belongs in the cognition radius.
3. Do not treat Capability-Action gaps with learning. Change environment, commitment structure, or incentives — not the information landscape.
4. Expand circles in sequence: close Capability-Action first (releases existing potential), then Cognition-Capability, then expand cognition.
5. Revisit every 90 days. Skills decay; new understanding reveals new ignorance; commitments change.

→ Primary sources: references/sources.md

Common Rationalizations

[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.

Fake move	Reality
[D] "I understand the domain, so I could do this if I tried."	Understanding and executing are different circles. No capability without deliberate practice and demonstrated output.
[D] "I'm working on it — just not there yet."	"Working on it" is not the action radius. Specific behaviors with measurable frequency are.
[D] "I need to learn more before I can start."	Most often the bottleneck is a Capability-Action gap. More learning delays action without fixing the root cause.
[D] "I can't close the capability-action gap without more motivation."	Motivation is unreliable. Commitment devices and environmental design are more reliable.
[D] "My team's capability is as large as our best individual's."	Team capability requires coordination and repeatability. The org radius is almost always smaller than the sum of individual radii.
→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern	What went wrong and why

Red Flags

• Stated expertise significantly larger than demonstrated outputs — and gap not actively closing
• Team's action radius excludes their highest-stated-priority domain
• Gap diagnosis done with self-report only; no external validation
• Capability-Action gap addressed by adding training, not changing environment
• Map not revised in 90+ days despite significant domain changes

Verification

• Cognition radius: items passing the validation test only (teachable, peer-reviewable)
• Capability radius: items with external evaluation only, not self-assessed
• Action radius: behaviors from last 30 days only, not "typical"
• Both gaps identified with specific items and named root causes
• Priority gap for each category has a 30-day closure action with named validation
• 90-day revision date is set

---

Part of deciqAI Knowledge Skills — 163 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/skills/three-radius-model?utm_source=clawhub&utm_medium=marketplace&utm_campaign=knowledge-skills&utm_content=three-radius-model · ⭐ Star the repo → https://github.com/deciqAI/knowledge-skills · Contributions welcome.